Progress in Polymer Science Submission Guide: Proposal Form & Expert-Network Test

Source: Progress in Polymer Science on ScienceDirect, Elsevier Guide for Authors, accessed May 2026.

Progress in Polymer Science operates an invitation-only model via the Elsevier Proposal Form. Verbatim from Elsevier:

Unsolicited manuscripts submitted without a proposal form will not be considered.

The standard path begins by downloading the Proposal Form (.doc) from Elsevier author guidance or via the journal's Guide for Authors page. Authors complete the 8 fields described below and submit through Elsevier Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal (Progress in Polymer Science Editorial Manager instance) as Article Type "Proposal". Editor decisions arrive in 6 to 8 weeks.

Accepted proposals receive an invitation to draft the full manuscript across 4 to 8 months based on the agreed scope. The full manuscript is submitted through Editorial Manager when complete, with manuscript review and production completing 4 to 7 months later.

The Elsevier Proposal Form requires verbatim:

The ten-experts test is the load-bearing field. Editors use it both to draw referees AND to read the proposer's network. Obvious omissions of foundational researchers signal author-authority gaps; too-tight overlap with the proposers' direct collaborators signals too-small a circle.

Invited Progress in Polymer Science articles follow these structural norms:

• Body text: typically 8000 to 30000+ words across 50 to 100+ printed pages

• References: 200 to 500+ comprehensive coverage; ~50 percent within past decade is the editorial expectation

• Figures and schemes: estimated count in Proposal Form; typically 10 to 30 figures

• Abstract: typical Elsevier review format (~250 words)

The Proposal Form's Estimated Statistics field commits the author to these counts; meaningful deviation at full submission requires editor consultation.

For the proposal stage (Article Type Proposal):

For invited manuscripts (after proposal acceptance):

Source: Progress in Polymer Science Guide for Authors, Progress in Polymer Science Proposal Form.

Progress in Polymer Science operates a two-stage timeline: Proposal evaluation first, full manuscript after invitation.

Day 0: Proposal upload to Elsevier Editorial Manager

Author submits the completed 8-field Proposal Form via Editorial Manager as Article Type Proposal. Automated technical checks verify file format.

Week 1 to 2: Scope and timing screen

The editor reads the Topical Outline (300 to 500 words), Table of Contents, and Prior Reviews list for topic-coverage collision across Progress in Polymer Science, Polymer Reviews, and Macromolecules within the past 5 years.

Week 3 to 6: Authority and expert-roster review

The editor evaluates the Author Publications and Publication Record fields against the proposed topic, and reads the ten-experts list for network coverage and proposer authority signals.

Week 6 to 8: Invitation decision

For accepted proposals, the editor issues a formal invitation with agreed scope, length, target submission date, and any scope adjustments. Most decline decisions arrive in this window.

Month 4 to 8: Author drafting window

Invited authors draft the full review across 4 to 8 months. Scope deviation requires editor consultation.

Month 9 to 15: Manuscript review and production

The full invited manuscript completes peer review (~3 months), revision cycles, and production within the 9-to-15-month total proposal-to-publication window.

Source: Editage Progress in Polymer Science profile, accessed May 2026.

The single most consequential decision before sending a proposal is which polymer-review venue to target. The format and length distinctions are load-bearing.

The routing rule: comprehensive polymer-science syntheses with 50 to 100+ page treatment go to Progress in Polymer Science (Proposal Form required); mid-length invited polymer reviews go to Polymer Reviews (~30 pages, also invitation); short-form polymer communications go to Macromolecular Rapid Communications (Wiley); polymer-chemistry research and reviews go to Polymer Chemistry (RSC).

Progress in Polymer Science editors evaluate proposals on three operational signals:

1. Topic-coverage absence within 5 years across the polymer-review family. Topics reviewed in Progress in Polymer Science, Polymer Reviews, or Macromolecules within the past 5 years face high bar. The Prior Reviews field is checked against this.

1. Author authority in central polymer subfield. The Author Publications and Publication Record fields signal whether the proposer is a recognized authority in the central subfield, not in an adjacent area.

1. Ten-experts network coverage. The 10 internationally recognized experts field is the polymer-review-venue analog of the right-reviewers-list gate at Nature Reviews journals. Editors read it as both a referee draw AND a proposer-network signal.

Recent volumes span polymer synthesis methodologies (controlled radical polymerization, ring-opening, click chemistry), polymer architectures (block copolymers, dendrimers, hyperbranched, networks), polymer characterization techniques (advanced microscopy, scattering, modeling), structure-property relationships, polymer processing and manufacturing, polymer-application areas (biomedical, energy, electronics, environmental), sustainable and degradable polymers, polymer composites, and emerging polymer-science topics including AI-assisted polymer discovery.

For specific recent volumes, see Progress in Polymer Science on ScienceDirect.

This guide tells you what Progress in Polymer Science editors look for before reviewer assignment, and Manusights checks whether your proposal passes the proposal-form, prior-reviews, author-authority, expert-roster, topical-outline, and redirect-map tests that official Elsevier guidance cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we never train on submitted manuscripts.

Across Manusights submission reviews for polymer-review proposals targeting Progress in Polymer Science, three proposal-screen patterns recur because PPS is not a normal review-article outlet and not a place to upload an unsolicited full manuscript. (Per Elsevier's proposal pathway, authors usually submit a Proposal Form through Editorial Manager as Article Type Proposal;

unsolicited manuscripts submitted without the proposal form will not be considered.) These patterns are testable in the Topical Outline, Table of Contents, Prior Reviews field, five related author publications, publication-record counts, ten-experts list, estimated statistics, cover letter, and redirect map before the Proposal Form is uploaded.

Prior Reviews field exposes a recent coverage collision

For Progress in Polymer Science proposals, the most frequent decline pattern is visible before editors evaluate writing quality. The Prior Reviews field reveals that the topic was already covered recently in Progress in Polymer Science, Polymer Reviews, Macromolecules, Chemical Society Reviews, Nature Reviews Materials, Annual Review of Materials Research, or a specialist polymer venue.

Some proposals omit the recent review and look careless. Others list it honestly but fail to explain why a new 50-to-150-page synthesis is warranted now. The failing manuscript components are the 300-to-500-word Topical Outline, numbered Table of Contents, Prior Reviews list, estimated statistics, and reference-age estimate.

A proposal that says "recent progress in biodegradable polymers" or "advances in controlled radical polymerization" without a post-review thesis reads like a coverage catalog. PPS needs a reorganization of the subfield, not a chronology. These proposals often route better to Polymer Reviews, Macromolecular Rapid Communications, Polymer Chemistry, Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics, ACS Macro Letters, or a special issue in a narrower polymer journal.

The fix is to treat the Prior Reviews field as an argument, not a bibliography: identify the last major synthesis, name what changed after it, and explain why the subfield now needs a new framework rather than another survey.

Check your Progress in Polymer Science proposal against prior review collision before submission →

Publication history shows adjacent expertise

In Manusights reviews, the second recurring pattern is an authority gap exposed by the Proposal Form itself. Progress in Polymer Science asks for five publications by the authors most closely related to the topic, plus each author's total publication record and topic-related count. That field is not a formality.

It tells editors whether the proposing team helped build the polymer subfield or is arriving from an adjacent materials, biomaterials, nanocomposite, membrane, coating, or drug-delivery area. A strong overall publication record can still fail if the five listed papers sit near the topic rather than inside its primary-research core. The same problem appears in the ten-experts list.

If foundational polymer scientists are missing, or if the list is dominated by collaborators, the proposal reads as a small network trying to claim a comprehensive review. The failing components are author publications, publication-record counts, expert suggestions, cover letter, and Table of Contents. These proposals may fit Polymer Reviews, Macromolecular Rapid Communications, Polymer Chemistry, Biomacromolecules, or a specialist review issue better.

The fix is to add a central-subfield co-author, narrow the topic to the authors' true authority, or redirect to a venue where adjacent expertise is acceptable.

Check your Progress in Polymer Science proposal against author authority before submission →

Topical Outline catalogs subtopics instead of making a synthesis argument

For Progress in Polymer Science submissions, the third pattern is a Topical Outline that reads like a table of contents for a textbook chapter. The proposal lists synthesis methods, characterization tools, applications, challenges, and future perspectives, but it does not state what the review will argue about the polymer field.

PPS publishes state-of-the-art syntheses by internationally recognized authorities; the Topical Outline has to show how the review will reorganize the literature. The mismatch appears in the opening sentence, numbered Table of Contents, figure and scheme estimate, reference count, and proposed submittal date. A proposal can be broad and still fail if breadth is just accumulation.

It needs a thesis: a paradigm shift, failure mode, controversy, method convergence, sustainability bottleneck, structure-property framework, or design map that polymer researchers can use after reading. If the topic is too narrow for that move, Polymer Reviews, Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics, Polymer, Polymer Chemistry, ACS Applied Polymer Materials, or a focused special issue may be cleaner.

The fix is to write the first sentence of the Topical Outline as an argument, then make the Table of Contents prove that each section advances that argument.

Check your Progress in Polymer Science proposal against synthesis outline before submission →

Check whether your Progress in Polymer Science proposal is submission-ready →

For a proposal-specific signal before you submit, run a Progress in Polymer Science proposal readiness check.

• Polymer Degradation and Stability submission guide

• Is Progress in Polymer Science a good journal?

• Progress in Polymer Science journal overview

• Polymer Reviews Submission Guide

• Macromolecular Rapid Communications Submission Guide

• Polymer Chemistry Submission Guide